旅游管理專(zhuān)業(yè) 外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯 中英文對(duì)照畢業(yè)論文

外文文獻(xiàn)譯文地方依戀、認(rèn)同和旅游業(yè)對(duì)社區(qū)的影響以北京胡同為例谷慧敏，Chris Ryan5.討論從目的地發(fā)展的角度來(lái)看，在什剎海胡同從參與階段轉(zhuǎn)向鞏固階段的旅游目的地生命周期（如，王，1997）以及面臨著優(yōu)先于2008年北京奧運(yùn)會(huì)潛在的旅游業(yè)發(fā)展的時(shí)期內(nèi)，這些研究發(fā)現(xiàn)代表著居民對(duì)旅游業(yè)和地方的態(tài)度。調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示了目前對(duì)旅游業(yè)容忍度，伴隨著對(duì)日常生活干擾程度的日益增長(zhǎng)的擔(dān)憂(yōu)以及一些關(guān)于旅游業(yè)創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)和幫助保護(hù)胡同本質(zhì)的能力的懷疑。根據(jù)關(guān)于地方識(shí)別的爭(zhēng)論，調(diào)查對(duì)象區(qū)分胡同是作為一種建筑物集合還是一種社會(huì)實(shí)體。許多人注意到，建筑物和文物建筑保護(hù)并不等同于對(duì)一種生活方式的維護(hù)，但它是建筑遺產(chǎn)，吸引游覽，旅游使建筑具有了商業(yè)價(jià)值，從而為今后的發(fā)展保留了原有的地方標(biāo)記。定型數(shù)據(jù)表明，通過(guò)分區(qū)，旅游開(kāi)發(fā)和維護(hù)社會(huì)形態(tài)之間可以出現(xiàn)折衷（Ryan & Gu, 2007）。首先是時(shí)間每日分區(qū)，游客在白天可以參觀胡同，但是在傍晚或者深夜卻不能。當(dāng)然在一年中暖和的月份里，小巷成為當(dāng)?shù)匕傩丈鐣?huì)交往的中心。因此，目前酒店建筑的相對(duì)缺失是保護(hù)胡同這一社會(huì)實(shí)體的方法和途徑。其次，在冬季，旅游業(yè)有季節(jié)性地下降。因此，通過(guò)不斷增長(zhǎng)的對(duì)旅游業(yè)的忍耐度，以及為旅游業(yè)引起的壓力提供喘息時(shí)間，時(shí)間分區(qū)從而加強(qiáng)了場(chǎng)所依戀。從更廣泛的文獻(xiàn)角度來(lái)看，研究表明了強(qiáng)烈的地方感和現(xiàn)存遺產(chǎn)通告如何對(duì)旅游業(yè)做出反應(yīng)。在這種特定的情況下，胡同作為一種建筑和社會(huì)相互作用的特殊場(chǎng)所的理解比其作為一種經(jīng)濟(jì)收益來(lái)說(shuō)更具影響。然而，由這些項(xiàng)目的結(jié)果分配引起了一個(gè)很重要的警告。在對(duì)未來(lái)旅游業(yè)發(fā)展的態(tài)度上，對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)影響的認(rèn)知態(tài)度作為一種歧視變量的確發(fā)揮了重要作用。原因之一在于兩個(gè)子群之間的差異，即一種差別部分基于年齡，第二種是對(duì)旅游業(yè)工作吸引力的感知。在這個(gè)意義上說(shuō)，一個(gè)對(duì)這種就業(yè)的吸引力的問(wèn)題被證明是一個(gè)相關(guān)項(xiàng)目，對(duì)其他研究者而言除了問(wèn)被調(diào)查者是否真地在本行業(yè)中就業(yè)才值得提問(wèn)。如所建議的那樣，年齡作為一個(gè)變量對(duì)地方依賴(lài)的性質(zhì)作出如上概念化的理解有幫助。中國(guó)的年輕人，特別是在近幾十年中，已經(jīng)在迅速的經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)變革中社會(huì)化了，這些變革通常被認(rèn)為是進(jìn)步的。對(duì)他們而言，地方依附感不一定形成于物質(zhì)匱乏的情境下或社會(huì)改革時(shí)期。實(shí)際上，變革可能是一個(gè)形成地方依附的先決條件，對(duì)變革而言地方依附是一種吸引力，而不是威脅。這些因素可能解釋當(dāng)數(shù)據(jù)運(yùn)用到圖4中的結(jié)構(gòu)方程模型中估計(jì)擬合優(yōu)度時(shí)的失敗。同樣，地方依附的討論可以涉及到人格理論。凱利（Kelly 196，p.177）指出年輕人采取的“消極主義的”角色中的集團(tuán)期望和行為方式和預(yù)期的行為方式相反，但是結(jié)束了“使用和父母相同的維度系統(tǒng)”。因此，年青一代可能表達(dá)對(duì)胡同現(xiàn)狀的不滿(mǎn)，然而這個(gè)時(shí)期他們?cè)诒本┑纳罱?jīng)歷，生活經(jīng)驗(yàn)經(jīng)過(guò)了完全的變革。結(jié)果，對(duì)胡同變化和地方依附的感知可能產(chǎn)生模糊性和矛盾的聲明。在沒(méi)有報(bào)告的定性研究中，發(fā)現(xiàn)了不一致態(tài)度和偶爾關(guān)于積極和消極的詳細(xì)描述的樣本。例如，年輕人喜歡湖邊餐館晚上的氣氛，但也可能埋怨沒(méi)有能力支付在這里的消費(fèi)從而享受“時(shí)尚”的地方依附，但是同樣感覺(jué)部分排斥而不是在一種“角色的衣架”上。但是“等待”本身有利于使活動(dòng)有夏天的感覺(jué)。如前文所述，重要的高層次原因有助于建筑遺產(chǎn)胡同作為一種對(duì)地方依附強(qiáng)有力的貢獻(xiàn)者展現(xiàn)，以及通過(guò)生活在特殊的地方產(chǎn)生的特殊感情。這個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)也出現(xiàn)在定性數(shù)據(jù)中，但也需要指出，認(rèn)同效能和地方依戀在理解中國(guó)公共整治進(jìn)程中是復(fù)雜的。也存在著這樣的例子，一些被調(diào)查者清楚地陳述道到這些問(wèn)題只和政府相關(guān)，而和他們無(wú)關(guān)。定量數(shù)據(jù)清楚地顯現(xiàn)一些對(duì)未來(lái)的政策持保留意見(jiàn)。正如Worden、Savada和Dolan（1987），謝（2001），王（2003）以及范、Wall和Mitchell（即將出版的）等評(píng)論，中國(guó)社會(huì)里政府在旅游規(guī)劃的作用過(guò)程中無(wú)處不在，從而在西方學(xué)術(shù)文獻(xiàn)的理解中，可能潛在地使作為參與者自我形象的自我效能復(fù)雜化。作為旅游業(yè)對(duì)中國(guó)社區(qū)的影響評(píng)估的一部分，希望未來(lái)關(guān)于地方依戀和地方認(rèn)同的研究能夠更清楚地考慮這個(gè)問(wèn)題。在這個(gè)意義上說(shuō)，今后的研究應(yīng)尋求更具體明確的關(guān)系：（a）對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)卣缪萁巧母兄?，（b）旅游業(yè)引起的變化和（c）Breakwell（1986，1992）提出的框架下的地方依戀和自我效能。簡(jiǎn)而言之，如本研究所涉及的那樣，項(xiàng)目中存在著許多明顯的限制和不足。問(wèn)卷主要涉及旅游業(yè)引起的變化，胡同正在經(jīng)歷著變化，而北京也圍繞它在變化。胡同和更為廣泛的北京經(jīng)濟(jì)相聯(lián)系，社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治上變化的出現(xiàn)又不僅僅是由于旅游業(yè)的發(fā)展。這些不僅暗示著現(xiàn)有研究的失敗，也暗示著以往文獻(xiàn)的失敗，因?yàn)橹患性谟陕糜我鸬淖兓难芯繘](méi)有將旅游業(yè)同可能出現(xiàn)的更為廣泛的社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)變化相聯(lián)系。Ryan和谷（2007）指出基于胡同的旅游業(yè)已經(jīng)融入全球化過(guò)程當(dāng)中，也有可能全球在地化?？傊狙芯康脑紭?gòu)思可能是有限的，它非常注重評(píng)估居民對(duì)胡同的認(rèn)同和對(duì)由旅游業(yè)引起的變化的反應(yīng)?；蛟S本研究應(yīng)當(dāng)置于一個(gè)更為廣泛的框架內(nèi)情境化，這在當(dāng)代中國(guó)可能真的非常必要。因此，建議今后關(guān)于中國(guó)旅游業(yè)影響的研究應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮更為廣泛的社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題。外文文獻(xiàn)原文Place attachment, identity and community impacts of tourismthe case of a Beijing hutongHuimin Gu, Chris Ryan5.DiscussionIn terms of destination development, the ndings represent the attitudes of residents towards tourism and place at a time when Shi Cha Hai hutong is moving from an involvement into consolidation stage of the tourism destination life cycle (e.g., see Wang, 1997) and facing potential further tourism development prior to the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. The ndings show a current tolerance of tourism accompanied by a growing concern about levels of intrusion into daily life, and some skepticism about the ability of tourism to create jobs and help preserve the nature of the hutong. In terms of the debate about place identication the respondents distinguish between the hutong as a collection of buildings and as a social entity. Many note that the preservation of buildings and built heritage does not equate to the maintenance of a way of life, yet it is the architectural heritage that attracts tourism, and tourism that gives commercial value to that architecture, thereby preserving the place markers for the future. The qualitative data show that a compromise between tourism development and the maintenance of social patterns emerges through zoning (Ryan & Gu, 2007). First there is temporal daily zoning when tourists may see the hutong during the day, but are largely absent during the evenings and nights and when, certainly in the warmer months of the year, the alleyways become a centre of social interaction for local people. Thus, the current comparative absence of hotel building is a means of preserving the hutong as a social entity. Second, there is seasonality when levels of tourism fall in winter. Temporal zoning thus aids place attachment by generating increased tolerance for tourism by providing periods of respite from the pressures induced by tourism. From the perspective of the wider literature, the study shows how a strong sense of place and living heritage informs responses to tourism. In this specic context, this understanding of the hutong as a special location of architecture and social interaction had more of an impact than the issue of economic gain. This is contrary to many ndings derived from the English-speaking world and is shown by the low overall mean scores allocated to the items measuring economic impacts. Yet, there is an important caveat arising from the distribution of scores on these items. Attitudes toward economic impacts did play a signicant role as a discriminating variable in attitudes towards further tourism development. One reason for this was the differences displayed between two sub-groups, namely a difference partly based upon age and second the perceived attractiveness of a job within the tourism industry. In that sense, the asking of a question about the attractiveness of such employment proved to be a pertinent item, and for other researchers it may well be worth asking this in addition to asking whether the respondent is actually employed in the industry. The importance of age as a variable has, it is suggested, something to do with the nature of place attachment as conceptualized above. Younger people, especially during recent decades in China, have been socialized at a period of rapid economic and social change where change is often deemed to be progress. For them, senses of place attachment are not necessarily formed in a context of lack of infrastructure change or social evolution. Indeed, change may be a pre-requisite of forming place attachment, for change is an attraction and not a threat. These considerations might account for the failure of the data to produce estimates of good t when applied to the structural equation modelling of Fig. 4. Equally, the discussion of place attachment can be related to theories of personality. Kelly (1963, p.177) refers to group expectancies and the manner in which the young adopt negativistic roles to be contrary to expected behaviours but wind up using the very same dimensional system his (sic) parents use. Thus, the younger person may express dissatisfaction with the status quo of the hutong, yet within their life experience of Beijing at this date, their experiences have been wholly experiences of change. Consequently, perceptions of change of the hutong and place attachments may well be expressed in statements of ambiguity and inconsistency. In the qualitative study not reported here, examples of inconsistent attitudes and at times careful delineations of positive and negatives were found. For example, younger people would enjoy the night atmosphere of restaurants at the lakes, but might complain of an inability to spend money thereso thereby enjoying a place attachment of being fashionable but equally feel in part excluded other than in a hanger on role. But hanging on in itself contributes to the summer sense of activity.As noted above, the high levels of importance attributed to the architectural heritage of the hutong emerges as a strong contributor to place attachment, and the sense of being special by living in a special place. This nding also emerged from the qualitative data, but it also needs to be stated that identity efcacy and place attachment is complex in the understandings of Chinese communal political processes. Examples were found where some respondents clearly stated that these issues were only matters for the government, and not for them, and the quantitative data clearly showed that some had reservations about future policy. As Worden, Savada, and Dolan, (1987), Xie (2001), Wang, (2003) and Fan, Wall and Mitchell (forthcoming) among others comment, in China the role of government in the planning processes of tourism is wholly pervasive, thereby potentially complicating the role of self-efcacy as a contributor to self-image as understood in the western academic literature. Future research that wishes to engage in place attachment and place identity as part of an assessment of the impacts of tourism on Chinese communities may need to consider this more explicitly. In this sense, future research should seek to clarify more specically the relationships: (a) perceptions of the role of local government, (b) change induced by tourism and (c) place attachment and self-efcacy within the framework suggested by Breakwell (1986, 1992). In short, as this research project evolved, various limitations in the project became evident. Questions were primarily related to tourism-induced change, but the hutong is experiencing change as Beijing is also changing around it. The hutong is linked to the wider Beijing economy and the social, economic and political changes that are occurring are not solely due to tourism. This seems to imply a failing in not only the current research but also with past literature because by concentrating on tourism-induced change only research has failed to link tourism to the wider socio-economic changes that might also be occurring. Ryan and Gu (2007) argue that hutong-based tourism has become linked into a process of globalization, and possibly of glocalization too. In short, the original design of this research may be limited by the very focus it created on assessing resident identication with the hutong and reactions to tourism-induced change. Perhaps the project should have been contextualized within a wider framework, and this need may be particularly true in contemporary China. It is therefore suggested that future research into the impacts of tourism within China need to take account of these wider social and economic issues.